Killing-the-Buddha

Buddhism Misconceptions
— 

by Samsaran

  1. Buddhists have to be vegetarians. Not so. Buddhists are directed not to kill or order others to kill for them. The Buddha ate meat.
  2. Buddhists can’t defend themselves. No. Buddhists can use force to defend themselves or others and that includes deadly force.
  3. The Dalai Lama is the “Buddhist Pope”. No. The Dalai Lama is the head monk of one order of Tibetan Buddhism and not even the largest one. He is famous in the west as the result of his exile from Tibet after the Chinese takeover of his country.
  4. Buddhists have to be poor. No. While Buddhist monks live in poor communal communities there is no such restriction on lay Buddhists.
  5. Only monks and nuns can become enlightened. No. Any human being has the potential for enlightenment. This is “Buddha Nature”.
  6. Buddhists cannot have sex. Monks and nuns are celibate. Lay people can have all the sex they want. If this were not the case there would soon be no more Buddhists.
  7. White people can’t be Buddhists. Nonsense. Buddhism started in India and moved into places like China and Japan just as Christianity started in the Middle East and moved into Europe.
  8. Buddhism is one religion. Nope. Buddhism is even more fragmented and diverse than Christianity or Islam. Even within a single nation such as Japan there are many different Buddhist traditions.
  9. Buddha is worshiped as a God. Buddhism is diverse and even within each tradition there exist differing levels of understanding. A shopkeeper may not meditate or study the suttas but may light incense or make offerings to a statue much the same way a Catholic might light a candle to the Virgin Mary.
  10. Buddhists are atheists. No. Buddhism does not recognize a single personal God like Christians or Muslims. The truth is that a Buddhist can believe in one god, many gods or no gods.  It is irrelevant to the practice of Buddhism.

oroincensoemirra  asked:

Thanks! :) I read that you have a Buddhist philosophy! has always intrigued me a lot! talk to me about?

A brief description about Buddhism:

Essentially it is a philosophy provides teachings for on to take on a spiritual path to reach a state of enlightenment. There is no theology, no worship of a deity or deification of the Buddha. In Buddhism time is not devoted to a god but to yourself, to improve your state of mind through all its teachings.

  • Brief history:
    Origin- northern India.
    The founder, Siddhartha Gautama, was born in a royal family which kept him distant from the true suffering that was occurring behind the walls of their palace. So when one day he decided to step out into the real world he saw each for the first time, an old man, a sick man, and a corpse. This lead to a point of clarity and realisation that sickness, death, and age are all inevitable and destroyed his old, privileged, mentality. He soon decided to leave his royal life, his wife and child, and turn to a simple holy life. For six years, Siddhartha lived a life of extreme asceticism which was still not enough for his spiritual journey. Therefore he lived a life neither of royalty nor of poverty. One day he became completely absorbed in meditation that he reached a point of enlightenment. Brahma suggested that this state should be shared for others to experience and therefore Siddhartha became a teacher and a motion started a wheel of teaching. (More about history x and x)

  • Spiritual teachings:
    The four noble truths-
    1. Human life is full of suffering
    2. Suffering stems from craving pleasure and avoidance of pain
    3. Suffering can be eradicated
    4. The path of freedom from suffering is the path of enlightenment.
    The three universal truths- 
    1. Nothing is lost in the universe: (Anicca)
    The first truth is that nothing is lost in the universe. Matter turns into energy, energy turns into matter. A dead leaf turns into soil. A seed sprouts and becomes a new plant. We are the same as plants, as trees, as other people. We consist of that which is around us. Understanding this truth, the Buddha and his disciples never killed any animal.
    2. Everything Changes:(Dukkha)
    The second universal truth of the Buddha is that everything is continuously changing. Life is like a river flowing on and on, ever-changing. Our ideas about life also change. People once believed that the world was flat, but now we know that it is round.
    3. Law of Cause and Effect:(Anatta)
    The third universal truth explained by the Buddha is that there is continuous changes due to the law of cause and effect. This is the same law of cause and effect found in every modern science textbook. In this way, science and Buddhism are alike.
    The law of cause and effect is known as karma.Nothing ever happens to us unless we deserves it. We receive exactly what we earn. Although this concept is encountered in many other religions it has different meanings. In Buddhism karma has implications beyond this life. Bad actions in previous lives can follow the individual through future lives. Even an Enlightened One is not exempt from the effects of past karma. Every action we take molds our characters for the future. Both positive and negative traits can become magnified over time as we fall into habits. 
    The noble Eightfold path:
    The beautiful symbol of the wheel (picture below) with its eight spokes represents the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha’s teaching goes round and round like a great wheel that never stops, leading to the central point of the wheel, the only point which is fixed, Nirvana. 
    1. Right View. The right way to think about life is to see the world through the eyes of the Buddha–with wisdom and compassion.
    2. Right Thought. We are what we think. Clear and kind thoughts build good, strong characters.
    3. Right Speech. By speaking kind and helpful words, we are respected and trusted by everyone.
    4. Right Conduct. No matter what we say, others know us from the way we behave. Before we criticize others, we should first see what we do ourselves.
    5. Right Livelihood. This means choosing a job that does not hurt others. The Buddha said, “Do not earn your living by harming others. Do not seek happiness by making others unhappy.”
    6. Right Effort. A worthwhile life means doing our best at all times and having good will toward others. This also means not wasting effort on things that harm ourselves and others.
    7. Right Mindfulness. This means being aware of our thoughts, words, and deeds.
    8. Right Concentration. Focus on one thought or object at a time. By doing this, we can be quiet and attain true peace of mind.
    The Three Refuges (The Triple Jewel) -
    A refuge is a place to go for safety and protection. Taking refuge does not mean running away from life. It means living life in a fuller, truer way. Sometimes we need guidance in our paths that is why we have the Triple Jewel: The Buddha is the guide.The Dharma is the path.The Sangha are the teachers or companions along the way.  
    The Five precepts (ethics): 
    1. No killing - The Buddha said, “Life is dear to all beings. They have the right to live the same as we do.” We should respect all forms of life.
    2. No Stealing -  we should learn to give and take care of things that belong to our family, school, or the public.
    3. No sexual misconduct -  not causing harm to oneself or others in the area of sexual activity.
    4. No lying - Avoiding misunderstanding by being honest, this precept includes no gossip, no back-biting, no harsh words and no idle speech.
    5. No intoxications -  Mindfulness is a fundamental quality to be developed the Buddha’s path, and experience shows that taking intoxicating drink or drugs tends to run directly counter to this.
    The Wheel of life:
    In Buddhism death does not mean the end of life.. When one dies, one’s consciousness leaves and enters one of the six paths of rebirth. There are six states on the wheel of life. (More information here and here)

If you’re overwhelmed by all this information just remember this … 
Once a very old king went to see an old hermit who lived in a bird’s nest in the top of a tree, “What is the most important Buddhist teaching?” The hermit answered, “Do no evil, do only good. Purify your heart.” The king had expected to hear a very long explanation. He protested, “But even a five-year old child can understand that!” “Yes,” replied the wise sage, “but even an 80-year-old man cannot do it.“ 

Please understand that there are many different types of Buddhism. The teachings have been adapted to suit the said culture as time progresses, however they all have many common teachings. I tried to be as general as possible and to link as much as possible for further information.  Since Buddhism is a philosophy, and like other philosophies, it can be interpreted in a different way by everyone therefore if i said something which offended you I appologise and i take responsibility. I understand this can be an important subject for many so i did my best to be careful not to sound rude. I am in now way trying to feed you all this information as a way of ‘brainwashing’ anyone but only to provide information as asked by oroincensoemirra  and many others. xxx

Other links:
My primary source
Introductions 

- Much love, Amy

anonymous asked:

Hey I'm really sorry but I'm confused about chakras and karma being closed?? I thought those were universal concepts. I've been trying to find other websites and tumblrs that say chakras and karma are closed but I can't. Could you maybe explain more?

First things first, holy shit am I sorry how long this one has taken to come out. I’ve been sitting on this for months and I finally got around to it. Okay, so why they’re considered appropriation.

I’ll start with Karma. You see the word Karma get thrown around a lot in the west as a quick term for “What goes around comes around.” And while this isn’t entirely wrong it addresses such a narrow scope of what Karma actually is it might as well be.

I’ll start with Hinduism. Karma can be split into three distinct categories:

Prarabdha: what most people think when they think Karma, this affects you within the current life time but this is the smallest portion of Karma.

Kriyamana: this is the accumulation of Karma in the current life time which flows into.

Sanchita: the full amount of Karma that follows into your following lives.

Now India used to have a strong Caste system put in place in society and the more positive your Sanchita Karma the higher in the Caste system you were born in your next life, and the more negative, the lower in the Caste system. Now I believe recently India is either attempting or has gotten rid of the Caste system so I’m not entirely sure how that’s going to affect things, I’m just telling you what I know. Edit: Apparently they didn’t get rid of the Caste system they got rid of the Untouchables which is a complicated thing to explain and beyong the scope of this so I won’t address that.

And lastly there is Karmic Yoga. Yes, that’s right, Karmic Yoga is a thing. What most Westerners think of as Yoga is a high specialized Yoga that a long time ago was reserved for royalty. Aside from that there are three other types of Yoga: Karmic Yoga, Devotional Yoga, and Mantra Yoga. (Those are absolutely not the names for the other two but I can’t remember the Sanskrit words so I’m using the closest word that accurately represents the idea.)

Karmic Yoga is devoting your actions to the gods and worshiping them through right deeds. Mantra Yoga is repeating prayers or the deity’s name over and over as an act of devotion and worship and devotion. Yoga is devoting your life to the deity, not so much in a monastic sense but more in a layman’s.  Every step you take is dedicated to them.

Now Karma in Buddhism works slightly differently.  In Buddhism, Karma does not apply to Buddha’s or Arahants. This is because Karma is only generated out of ignorance.  The Buddhas and Arahants have completely shed ignorance and see things as they truly are and thus do not generate Karma. Furthermore, in Buddhism, there are 4 types of Karma instead of 3 and Karma Yoga.  The list includes:

Reproductive: This is the karma that determines your conditions at birth, rich poor, etc. and is caused by the predominate Karma at the moment of death from the preceding life.

Supportive: This karma appears near the reproductive Karma and it is neither good nor bad but supports the reproductive Karma and helps it to persist throughout life. This one lasts from immediately after conception to the point of death.

Obstructive/Counteractive: This karma, unlike the previous one, tends to interrupt or obstruct the reproductive Karma, someone born with a good reproductive Karma could be ravished with many ailments thus preventing them from enjoying the circumstances of their birth. On the other hand someone born with bad Karma may have something very fortuitous happen such as winning the lottery and pulling them out of their bad circumstances.

Destructive: According to the law of Karma the potential energy of the Reproductive Karma could be nullified by a more powerful opposing Karma of the past, which, seeking an opportunity, may quite unexpectedly operate, just as a powerful counteractive force can obstruct the path of a flying arrow and bring it down to the ground.

As an instance of operation of all the four, the case of Devadatta, who attempted to kill the Buddha and who caused a schism in the Sangha (disciples of the Buddha) may be cited. His good Reproductive Karma brought him birth in a royal family. His continued comfort and prosperity were due to the action of the Supportive Karma. The Counteractive or Obstructive Karma came into operation when he was subject to much humiliation as a result of his being excommunicated from the Sangha. Finally the Destructive Karma brought his life to a miserable end.

There’s more to it but it’s getting a bit too long as is so I’m going to move on to Chakras.  Once again I’ll start with Hinduism.

The word Chakra (pronounced Chahkrah, not Chuhkruh or Shockrah) comes from the Sanskrit word Cakra meaning wheel, sometimes referring to the wheel of life. There’s a bit of disagreement on exactly how many Chakras there are: some sources say five, some seven, others eight, The most common is seven though, at least from what I’ve seen. The Chakras are aligned in ascending order from the base of the spine to the top of the head. Each Chakra is visualized as a lotus with a different (increasing) number of petals. In traditional thought each Chakra is associated with a Psychological Function, a Classical Element, and various other distinguishing features. The color association is a more new age thing. 

The chakras are thought to vitalise the physical body and to be associated with interactions of a physical, emotional and mental nature. They are considered loci of life energy, or prana, (also called shakti, or chi), which is thought to flow among them along pathways called nadis. The function of the chakras is to spin and draw in this Universal Life Force Energy to keep the spiritual, mental, emotional and physical health of the body in balance.

The chakras are described in the tantric texts the Sat-Cakra-Nirupana, and the Padaka-Pancaka, in which they are described as emanations of consciousness from Brahman, an energy emanating from the spiritual which gradually turns concrete, creating these distinct levels of chakras, and which eventually finds its rest in the Muladhara chakra. They are therefore part of an emanations theory, like that of the kabbalah in the west, lataif-e-sitta in Sufism or neo-platonism. The energy that was unleashed in creation, called the Kundalini, lies coiled and sleeping at the base of the spine. It is the purpose of the tantric or kundalini forms of yoga to arouse this energy, and cause it to rise back up through the increasingly subtler chakras, until union with God is achieved in the Sahasrara chakra at the crown of the head.

The earliest known mention of chakras is found in the later Upanishads, including specifically the Brahma Upanishad and the Yogatattva Upanishad. These vedic models were adapted in Tibetan Buddhism as Vajrayana theory, and in the Tantric Shakta theory of chakras. It is the shakta theory of 7 main chakras that most people in the West adhere to, either knowingly or unknowingly, largely thanks to a translation of two Indian texts, the Sat-Cakra-Nirupana, and the Padaka-Pancaka, by Sir John Woodroffe, alias Arthur Avalon, in a book entitled The Serpent Power.

That said, many present-day Indian gurus that incorporate chakras within their systems of philosophy do not seem to radically disagree with the western view of chakras, at least on the key points, and both these eastern and western views have developed from the Shakta Tantra school.

(Disclaimer: this next bit talks about mysticism in Judaism and Islam in which case I know extremely little and most of what is being talked about here is simply what I’ve dug up with research and cannot personally vouch for the accuracy as I wouldn’t know. If I’m incorrect please notify me so I can fix the information.)

There are various other models of chakras in other traditions, notably in Chinese medicine, and also in Tibetan Buddhism. Even in Jewish kabbalah, the different Sephiroth are sometimes associated with parts of the body. In Islamic Sufism, Lataif-e-Sitta ( Six Subtleties ) are considered as psychospiritual “organs” or faculties of sensory and suprasensory perception, activation of which makes a man complete. Attempts are made to try and reconcile the systems with each other, and notably there are some successes, even between such diverged traditions as Shakta Tantra, Sufism and Kabbalism, where chakras, lataif and Sephiroth can seemingly represent the same archetypal spiritual concepts. In Surat Shabda Yoga, initiation by an Outer Living Satguru (Sat - true, Guru - teacher) is required and involves reconnecting soul to the Shabda and stationing the Inner Shabda Master (the Radiant Form of the Master) at the third eye chakra.

Now actually I’m not going to list out the chakras and explain them because as said the descriptions in western texts aren’t bad at that part.

Okay now that I’ve got all that sorted, and again that’s not the full of it that’s still only like half but I feel I explained enough to sufficiently explain the concepts. The reason these are semi closed concepts that can easily wander into cultural appropriative territory is because they are not only very cultural concepts but arguably more importantly very unique Spiritual concepts. They touch upon Mysticism which like Islamic Sufism or Judaic Kabbalah are very important aspects in an attempt to “merging” with the divine in a sense. As such they are very unique and bastardization and prepackaged copies are not only completely missing the point but highly insulting and unacceptable. If anyone tries convincing you otherwise tell them to go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Now introduction to the concepts by a real yogi and taking it seriously is okay as you are being taught by someone with authority and the proper understanding to do so. The issue is with prepackaged, consummeristic, Western, bastardized bullshit.

Sparrow

before asking | faq+tags | resource blog

(The PSG is no longer answering questions about cultural appropriation.)

…in the time of the Buddha, there was a monk named Vaikali. He became attached to the Buddha, but his love was superficial. He saw the Buddha as a realm of light. When he sat near the Buddha, he felt very happy, and that’s all he wanted. He felt so peaceful, so happy, so content sitting by the Buddha. He didn’t listen deeply or carefully to the dharma talks. He just spent his time gazing at the Buddha. But even though he was staring right at the Buddha, he could see only his shadow; he could see only the small beauty of the Buddha. He didn’t see the great wisdom, the great love of the Buddha. Wherever he was, he just wanted to be with the Buddha. Wherever he sat, he just wanted to sit near the Buddha.

After a time, the Buddha saw that Vaikali was still very weak. So the Buddha decided he wouldn’t allow Vaikali to be near him anymore. He would not allow him to be his attendant. Vaikali thought the Buddha had abandoned him and didn’t love him anymore. Vaikali wanted to kill himself. The Buddha knew this was happening, so he tried to find a way to save him. The Buddha came and asked, “What are you doing?” He helped Vaikali see that his love wasn’t the deep love of a monk but a superficial attachment. The Buddha showed him that in his own self, deep down, there was the beautiful, the good, and the true, and he should be looking for that instead of chasing after an image of the good, beautiful, and true outside him.

At first, people are infatuated with an image they see as beautiful. They want to possess this image, and they suffer because of this. But after they wake up and see that it is a deception, they push away this image to look for another object of infatuation. They may wander their whole lives, from lifetime to lifetime, unable to find the real object of their love. But if we can find someone who has a steady faith in her own goodness, beauty, and truth, we can look at this person as a reflection of ourselves in order to return to ourselves and be in touch with the basic goodness, beauty, and truth in us. Then we will be happy, we will be able to put an end to our wandering. We can become someone who loves all beings, not just one person. We become someone who serves others. That is all the Buddha did in his life - rescue and love other beings.

A good spiritual teacher can show us that in our own heart we also have a spiritual teacher and we have to take refuge in this teacher inside us rather than becoming attached to a teacher outside us, because the spiritual teacher outside may be a fake. A true teacher will always encourage us to be in touch with the teacher within us. If we take refuge in this teacher within us, we will never be disappointed. If a wave has faith in its nature of water, the wave will never be disappointed.

- Thich Nhat Hanh, in “The Art of Power”.
(Image: The Naropa Buddha by Joan Anderson and Robert Spellman)

Buddhism Misconceptions

by Samsaran

  1. Buddhists have to be vegetarians. Not so. Buddhists are directed not to kill or order others to kill for them. The Buddha ate meat.
  2. Buddhists can’t defend themselves. No. Buddhists can use force to defend themselves or others and that includes deadly force.
  3. The Dalai Lama is the “Buddhist Pope”. No. The Dalai Lama is the head monk of one order of Tibetan Buddhism and not even the largest one. He is famous in the west as the result of his exile from Tibet after the Chinese takeover of his country.
  4. Buddhists have to be poor. No. While Buddhist monks live in poor communal communities there is no such restriction on lay Buddhists.
  5. Only monks and nuns can become enlightened. No. Any human being has the potential for enlightenment. This is “Buddha Nature”.
  6. Buddhists cannot have sex. Monks and nuns are celibate. Lay people can have all the sex they want. If this were not the case there would soon be no more Buddhists.
  7. White people can’t be Buddhists. Nonsense. Buddhism started in India and moved into places like China and Japan just as Christianity started in the Middle East and moved into Europe.
  8. Buddhism is one religion. Nope. Buddhism is even more fragmented and diverse than Christianity or Islam. Even within a single nation such as Japan there are many different Buddhist traditions.
  9. Buddha is worshiped as a God. Buddhism is diverse and even within each tradition there exist differing levels of understanding. A shopkeeper may not meditate or study the suttas but may light incense or make offerings to a statue much the same way a Catholic might light a candle to the Virgin Mary.
  10. Buddhists are atheists. No. Buddhism does not recognize a single personal God like Christians or Muslims. The truth is that a Buddhist can believe in one god, many gods or no gods.  It is irrelevant to the practice of Buddhism.
This, then, is how Leviticus begins and how it ends: Die now, or die later….The clearing where we stand is hemmed in on every side by darkness and foreboding. But: It’s still a clearing. It’s all we have. What do we do then–what can we do–on the only space that remains? We know what’s come before. We suspect what will come after. How do we now behave?
—  Michael Lesy, Killing the Buddha

Oh look. What’s this?

Those my friends, are just a list of a few links to articles about how Sungjong just gets manlier and manlier. 

Our celeb news reporters know what’s up. 

like hell freaking yeah he a man and hell freakin yeah people better know he can kill with his stares. hell yeah.

There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.
—  Gautama Buddha
Subject to grandiose hopes, to occasional feelings of loss, abandonment, we seem to have needed to feel our true home had once been Paradise. So we told ourselves we were the children of perfection, born in beauty–and, as what could have been a self-fulfilling prophecy, it had promise. We gave ourselves a bloodline touched by angels, the gift of everything, there and ready for us before we could ask.
—  A.L. Kennedy, Killing the Buddha

anonymous asked:

I've seen you (and other authors) talk about your characters like they talk to you, and I gotta ask - have you ever had conversations with them which aren't about their stories? A couple of mine have started giving me a hand with... life in general, kinda, and I'm not sure whether I should be taking this in stride as my next step as an author, or getting concerned about my mental health.

Hmm.

I’d say the way you manage your own characters is your own business. Though there’s this to say: if the results of these conversations are proving positive for you, in terms of making it easier for you to deal effectively with the world and the people in it, then I’d be hard put to get too worried…as long as you’re very clear that those conversations aren’t with external beings in any way, shape or form. They’re just  you having a conversation with yourself: though in a slightly different mode than usual. (A little more about this below.).

Around here I can tell you two things for sure:

(a) My characters don’t offer opinions on things outside of the stories where they’re positioned, or (more generally) things going on in what we laughably refer to as Real Life. In YW-universe parlance, this makes sense because my characters stand in a “less central” position to RL than I do: they’re as ill-equipped to pronounce on it as I would be to offer advice on handling life up in Tesseract Country, two or three physical dimensions up from the 3D one where I live. My characters (when I’m considering them as such) can have no sense of the larger context in which I operate. So if they started getting opinionated about how I was conducting real-life transactions, I would kick them the hell out of the conversation until they were willing to start comporting themselves more appropriately. I am running this show, not they.

(b) I’m absolutely clear that I’ve made my characters up out of occurrences in my experience and trends in my imagination. (I don’t believe in Muses, either. As a classicist I respect the Nine – the Trope Namers, if you will. But if I meet the [abstract] Muse in the road, I will – as one is adjured to do with the Buddha – kill her. I refuse to foist responsibility for my creative process – or agency in it – off on a construct liable to remove both.)

As a former psych professional I know that one technique that sometimes helps  the introspective mind more effectively examine itself is to allow various separate internal ego states to “personify” themselves and “speak” to you. But at all times one has to remember that all these voices are you, talking to yourself, and doing so only because you allow it. (”Talking to yourself” is a concept which doesn’t bother me in the slightest: partly because writers do it all the time, sometimes out loud as well as internally, and it does no harm: and partly because I agree with Gandalf’s assessment that talking to oneself removes the necessity for long explanations to others who otherwise can’t get what you’re going on about. [But then again, Gandalf is just one aspect of Tolkien talking to himself…])

I’ll add this as ©, if only as a minor addendum not specifically germane to this discussion, but slightly affiliated: I also don’t allow my characters to plunge around the landscape of a storyline doing as they please, potentially trashing carefully thought-out narrative structures. Some writers see this kind of thing as some sort of expression of creative freedom, but to me it looks more like a lapse in discipline – or, once again, a desire not to have to take responsibility for one’s own creation.

…Anyway. If your characters seem to be giving you good life advice, well, fine! But keep an eye on this situation – because you wouldn’t want to be caught by surprise if it started to go toxic. And never lose sight of the essential truth that they are just you, cosplaying (as it were) a useful degree of otherness. You can cut them out of the transactional equation any time you like, as soon as you feel confident in taking your own advice without the presence of a middleman.

Hope this helps. :)